SHARAD PANDURANG KARDILE,PUNE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(5), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 2009/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sharad Pandurang Kardile, the appellant, contesting an assessment order for the Assessment Year 2017-18, which included a significant addition to his declared income. The appeal was initially delayed due to various personal and technical reasons cited by the assessee, including health issues and lack of digital literacy. The Tribunal considered precedents that favored a liberal approach towards condoning delays when the merits of the case are significant. The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay and thus admitted the appeal for adjudication. On the merits, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had failed to comply with earlier notices due to the COVID-19 pandemic and other reasons, leading to the dismissal of his appeal by the CIT(A). The Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a detailed examination on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 315839 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (2001) 253 ITR 798 (SC), N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 INSC 382)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANISH MEHTA
• Assessee Lawyers: CHANDAN KATARIYA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2009/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sharad Pandurang Kardile, At Post Saradwadi, Tal Shirur, Dist. Pune -412210 Maharashtra PAN : AXCPK3167B Vs. ITO, Ward-13(5), Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y.2017-18 is directed against the order dated 28.11.2023 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 arising out of Assessment order dated 30.12.2019 passed u/s.144 r.w.s.143(3) of the Act. 2. Registry has informed that there is delay of 241 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee explaining the reasons which led to delay in filing the appeal, which includes lack of education and digital awareness, health issues, late awareness of proceedings, limited knowledge of law and portal use and that the assessee would not have gained anything from delay in filing the appeal. Assessee has referred to various Appellant by : Shri Chandan Katariya Revenue by : Shri Manish Mehta Date of hearing : 14.05.2025 Date of pronouncement : 16.05.2025 ITA No.2009/PUN/2024 Sharad Pandurang Kardile 2 legal precedents supporting the condonation of delay and placed reliance on the following decisions : 1. Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 2. Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (2001) 253 ITR 798 (SC) 3. N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 3. We have heard both the sides and gone through the averments made in the condonation application. Hon’ble courts in plethora of judgments observed that when consideration of an appeal on merits is pitted against the rejection of a meritorious claim on the technical ground of the bar of limitation, the Courts lean towards consideration on merits by adopting a liberal approach towards ‘sufficient cause’ to condone the delay. The Court considering an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act may also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal. A liberal approach may be adopted when some plausible cause for delay is shown. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condoned delay of 1537 days sub- serving the cause of justice. It was held so while observing that the delay in filing appeal by the appellant was unintentional, much less due to any deliberate laches, and was well-explained by the State before the High Court. Hon’ble Court further held that in cases where the merits are significant, a more liberal approach may be adopted to allow for the examination of the case on its merits. Having gone through the averments made in the condonation application and considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Court in the case of Inder Singh (supra), we are of the view that there was ‘reasonable cause’ which prevented the assessee in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. We ITA No.2009/PUN/2024 Sharad Pandurang Kardile 3 therefore condone the delay of 241 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. On merits of the case, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee failed to appear before ld.CIT(A) on few occasions and could not furnish any evidence/submissions which resulted in the dismissal of the appeal. Therefore, a prayer is made for providing one more opportunity to go before ld.CIT(A) and plead grounds of appeal. Ld. Departmental Representative did not oppose to this request. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We notice that the assessee who is an individual was subjected to survey proceedings u/s.133A of the Act conducted on 16.09.2016 and thereafter case selected for scrutiny. Return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 was furnished on 04.08.2017 declaring income of Rs.10,79,580/- and the assessment was completed u/s.144 r.w.s.143(3) of the Act making addition of Rs.83,85,853/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but failed to succeed as there was no compliance on the part of assessee. We on perusal of the impugned order notice that few notices of hearing were issued in the year 2021 when covid-19 pandemic prevailed across the country. In absence of relevant details and submissions, ld.CIT(A) affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 6. We therefore considering the facts and circumstance of the case and in the larger interest of justice, deem it proper to give one more opportunity to the assessee by restoring all the issues on merit to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication for which reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be provided to assessee ld.ld.CIT(A). Assessee is directed to provide latest email ITA No.2009/PUN/2024 Sharad Pandurang Kardile 4 id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 16th day of May, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 16th May, 2025. Satish आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. \u000eयथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "